Enyart Supporter Claims Righteousness Comes Through the Law

[Freak]

doogie, a ardent supporter of Enyart and plot materials, has recently stated:

"Actually, you're quite mistaken. Scripture explicitly states, Therefore one WILL BE declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.'

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=504325#post504325

He says this despite what the apostle Paul stated...

Romans 3

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law...

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

[Freak]

The apostle Paul continues...

Romans 4

t was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

and

Galatians 3

..know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Key word to note--no one.

[Turbo]

Why did you title this thread, "Enyart Supporter..."?

Why do you start out by saying, "doogie, a ardent supporter of Enyart and plot materials..."

Recently when Knight was discussing Open Theism, you criticized him for identifying himself as an Open Theist. You insisted that he should identify himself as a follower of Jesus Christ.

doogieduff is a follower of Jesus Christ, yet you identify him not with Christ, but with Bob Enyart. :down: Hypocrite.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Turbo

Why did you title this thread, "Enyart Supporter..."?

Why do you start out by saying, "doogie, a ardent supporter of Enyart and plot materials..."

Recently when Knight was discussing Open Theism, you criticized him for identifying himself as an Open Theist. You insisted that he should identify himself as a follower of Jesus Christ.

doogieduff is a follower of Jesus Christ, yet you identify him not with Christ, but with Bob Enyart. :down: Hypocrite.

Turbo,


:first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13861)

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Freak,

What do you think is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? God was pretty specific about things that don't seem to matter to you...

--Jeremy

[Behira]

Why do you suppose that G-d is so small as to have only one purpose in anything He does?

Mosic Law had many purposes. One, after the fall all creation was flawed. Mosic Law instructs us how to live with the highest possible results for our live, His teaching in the Torah makes us a people with a culture distinct on the earth, it helps us train ourselves to limits, it keeps us in a safe boundary to live in, it reveals Messiah, but after that reveiling, continues to lead us in how to live a redeemed life. The LORD's Feasts or the Feast of YHVH; when we do them; have us act out participate in activity that tells His story the way He wants.

The Torah also makes us more discerning, it has much bibical prophesy that helps us understand, the prophets and such like Revelation. I'm sure there is more; becasue He is limitless like His Holy Word.

[Behira]

And yes G-d was pretty specific in the Mosic Law; therefore if He were to resend any of it He would be likewise pretty specific. Since we see no specific instruction to ignore a law or teaching; what then do you suppose?

Likewise Him being specific; where do you find a "new covenant" which would have been written out specifically like all the others in the "New Testament"?

Hmmm?

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Behira,

Not sure who your posts were intended for...

The scope of this discussion is whether or not God asked the nation of Israel to keep His law by faith. I contend that circumcision believers were required to show that they had faith in God by keeping His law. Freak & Jerry contend that circumcision believers could attain righteousness by simply "believing" in God and rejecting His commands. They both have argued that Noah could have rejected God's command to build the ark, and still be saved. I argue, as does the Bible, that Noah showed that he had faith in God by following God's command and building the ark (Hebrews 11:7).

--Jeremy

[jaguar_prince]

There is much, much worse:

Jesus, an ardent supporter of the Father, has recently stated in Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and goats) that people will be saved because they have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked and taken in strangers.

And the guys didn't even know about the Lord.

Shall we crucify that Jesus?

[jaguar_prince]

And then there is a certain Luke, ardent supporter of Jesus, who wrote recently:

"A certain priest named Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth were both righteous before the Lord, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. "

(Luke 1:5-6)

[jaguar_prince]

So it's the word of Matthew and Luke against the word of Paul.

2 against one.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Freak,

What do you think is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? God was pretty specific about things that don't seem to matter to you...

--Jeremy

Actually the Bible tells us in the NT quite clearly the purpose of the law - it was a tutor to show us our need of His grace.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

doogieduff is a follower of Jesus Christ, yet you identify him not with Christ, but with Bob Enyart. The Jesus, I know, along with the Father and Holy Spirit inspired Paul to pen these words...

Romans 3

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law...

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Galatians 3

..know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Key word to note--no one.

[Freak]

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Freak,

What do you think is the purpose of the Mosaic Law? God was pretty specific about things that don't seem to matter to you...

--Jeremy Apparently you didn't read much in school. I gave you the answer via Scripture in my first post...

Romans 3

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law...

[Freak]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

Actually the Bible tells us in the NT quite clearly the purpose of the law - it was a tutor to show us our need of His grace. :up:

[smaller]

Though I believe in the SALVATION OF ALL PEOPLE I also believe that THE LAW stands.

There is NO USE in denying the DIRECT WORDS OF GOD. Those who teach such things are TEACHERS OF LAWLESSNESS.

The question then is WHY does the LAW STAND? What purpose does it SERVE?

Another question is WHY can't people obey it ENTIRELY?

The answers to these questions are QUITE simple and elementary.

The LAW reveals the PRESENCE OF SIN that dwells in US ALL.

The LAW arouses THESE THINGS in us and CONFIRMS that SIN indwells us and that EVIL is present within us ALL.

On this basis alone THE LAW stands to THIS DAY and those who deny it ARE FALSE TEACHERS and LIARS and WORD denigrators.

You who think THE LAW is NOT FOR YOU are wrong. While it is true you will find NO LIFE granted by THE LAW you will CERTAINLY find the "revealing of the man of sin" who controls most of you.

enjoy!

smaller

[Knight]

Originally posted by Freak

doogie, a ardent supporter of Enyart and plot materials, has recently stated:

"Actually, you're quite mistaken. Scripture explicitly states, Therefore one WILL BE declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.'

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=504325#post504325

He says this despite what the apostle Paul stated...

Romans 3

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law...

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Mr. divisive strikes again!

:troll:

[Dread Helm]

doogie is probably Larry (from BEL show "Can Larry Burn Forever") in disguise :D

[Turbo]

:nono:

[Dread Helm]

Originally posted by Turbo

:nono:

:doh:

[Dread Helm]

Originally posted by Turbo

:nono: :chuckle:

[Servo]

I wonder if Freak will ever notice that he keeps quoting Paul and never the twelve apostles when on the subject of grace.

:think:

[Dread Helm]

Shimei: Thank for commenting on my BEL show.

[Kronus]

Originally posted by Shimei

I wonder if Freak will ever notice that he keeps quoting Paul and never the twelve apostles when on the subject of grace.

:think:

Since you are counting apostles, I am wondering if you can quote what

"Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him," (Matthew 10:3,4 KJV) had to say about the subject of grace?

Andrew wrote no epistles to which we can refer to.

Also feel free to add the one that replaced Judas: And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:26 KJV) What did this Mattias have to say about grace?

Essentially we are left with 3 of the 12 you infer had something to say about grace: Peter, James and John.

Which kind of reduces your point a little bit, doesn't it?

[Dread Helm]

Uhhh, actually they were "zealos for the Law" not on fire for grace. :thumb:

[Servo]

Originally posted by Dread Helm

Uhhh, actually they were "zealos for the Law" not on fire for grace. :thumb:

Acts 21:20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;"

Galatians 2
7But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter


:think:

[Dread Helm]

Originally posted by Dread Helm

Shimei: Thank for commenting on my BEL show. :thumb:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight

Mr. divisive strikes again! Good work. :up: Perhaps, next time you can deal with the Scriptural record. Homework for Knight:

Does righteousness come from a person (any person of the Trinity) or from the Law?

:chuckle:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Kronus to Shimei

Since you are counting apostles, I am wondering if you can quote what

"Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him," (Matthew 10:3,4 KJV) had to say about the subject of grace?

Also feel free to add the one that replaced Judas: And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:26 KJV) What did this Mattias have to say about grace?

Essentially we are left with 3 of the 12 you infer had something to say about grace: Peter, James and John.

Which kind of reduces your point a little bit, doesn't it? :crackup: :up:

[Zakath]

Actually, from what I recall in seminary, there is not very strong evidence that a single one of the twelve wrote anything in the New Testament, except for John.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath

except for John. Well Zake, at least you're one up on ol' Aussie.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo

Well Zake, at least you're one up on ol' Aussie. Well, I suppose all that classroom time should count for something... ;)

[Dread Helm]

Hey Zak, why did you go AWOL on Battle Royale VII?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Dread Helm

Hey Zak, why did you go AWOL on Battle Royale VII?
Probably because Bob welched on the good intentions of the debate. Zakath demonstrated more integrity.

[Turbo]

By disappearing without notifying the moderator?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

By disappearing without notifying the moderator? If the man was seriously sick would that matter to you?

[GodsfreeWill]

Well freak, I have never met Bob Enyart, I have never talked to Bob Enyart, nor have I ever read the Plot. All my theological teaching has come from my pastor and theology professor at Derby School of Theology, Jeremy Finkenbinder. So you can blame him for my heretical beliefs! :thumb:

Anyways, in response to your wonderful thread, I really only have one thing to say. According to Luke 1:6, why were they righteous before God?

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by doogieduff
Anyways, in response to your wonderful thread, I really only have one thing to say. According to Luke 1:6, why were they righteous before God?

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
This verse does not say that they were "righteous before God" because they were blameless in regard to walking in the commandments and ordinances of God.

They were righteous before God because of their "faith".They fact that they were blameless in regard to walking in the commandments speak of their "obedience of faith".

But those at the Derby School of Theology you cannot seem to be able to distinguish between "faith" and "obedience of faith".

Paul also says that at the time that he was persecuting the church his "righteousness which is in the law" was blameless (Phil.3:6).

But despite this he was not saved.Are you not aware that "righteousness" before God is not according to Law keeping?:

"...for if there had been a law given which could have given life,verily righteousness should have been by the law.But the Scriptures hath concluded all under sin,that the promise by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe"(Gal.3:21,22).

That is why Paul says that "no man" is justified by the works of the law.And those who say that righteousness can can come by law keeping then they should consider the words of Paul:

"...for if righteousness come by the law,then Christ is dead in vain"(Gal.2:21).

In His grace,--Jerry

[Freak]

Originally posted by doogieduff

All my theological teaching has come from my pastor and theology professor at Derby School of Theology, Jeremy Finkenbinder. So you can blame him for my heretical beliefs! He's a theology professor? :darwinsm: You're in trouble.

Anyways, in response to your wonderful thread, I really only have one thing to say. According to Luke 1:6, why were they righteous before God?

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Righteousness came to them through God...

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith.":

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

This verse does not say that they were "righteous before God" because they were blameless in regard to walking in the commandments and ordinances of God.

They were righteous before God because of their "faith".They fact that they were blameless in regard to walking in the commandments speak of their "obedience of faith".

But those at the Derby School of Theology you cannot seem to be able to distinguish between "faith" and "obedience of faith".

Paul also says that at the time that he was persecuting the church his "righteousness which is in the law" was blameless (Phil.3:6).

But despite this he was not saved.Are you not aware that "righteousness" before God is not according to Law keeping?:

"...for if there had been a law given which could have given life,verily righteousness should have been by the law.But the Scriptures hath concluded all under sin,that the promise by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe"(Gal.3:21,22).

That is why Paul says that "no man" is justified by the works of the law.And those who say that righteousness can can come by law keeping then they should consider the words of Paul:

"...for if righteousness come by the law,then Christ is dead in vain"(Gal.2:21).

In His grace,--Jerry :up: :chuckle: